Bush Pilot 2005 season insurance requirements

[DEL]

I was told today by a chief pilot what was the insurance requirements are for the 2005 season:

MINIMUM requirements are: 550 Total Time and 250 Floats! And, the
preference is that that pilot have 100 ON TYPE on floats. Direct quote from his insurance agent.
Chief Pilot stated this: Given that there are only 3 insurers in Canada covering the float industry you can pretty much guess that all of the insurers will be looking for the very same requirements.

[just clearing the trees]

Although that's the case with many operators, that's not the case with every one. There are still places that will give lower time guys a shot. Good luck to everyone still looking out there, don't get discouraged.

[DEL]

I agree that "some places will give a low time pilots a shot" but that is them flying with another pilot till they build up there time. Flying flights at the beginning of the season to get up their time
The company I was talking to was looking for a pilot to fly their C-180 all summer long from day one. I have 900TT, and 125 hours on floats and of this I have 90 hours in a 1,00Hp Otter. This was not good enough for me to get this job. I was also told the same by two other operators for flying jobs this year.

[zero]

Keep your head up, they're still hiring. I got another call today for the season but have already accepted a position so he'll be calling the next guys on his list. I was told by another operator that the hiring pool for new guys with the required minimums are slim to non-existent...you may be in the running if you're close. But, I had the same amount of float hours as you have last year and ended up working elsewhere to pay for my float hours to get the mins...it's paying off now but it was a long hard slog, reality bites.

[grouchy]

Of that 90 hrs in a 1000 hp Otter how many are pic?

[DEL]

It was logged as PIC in my logbook.

[floatman]

So you held your ears while the pilot did the flying then.....

[water wings]

i was told that those are the minimums only and that some companies up their limits for other reasons; personal experience, customer liablitilty and preference, insurance discounts, flexibility of insurance if they have other types on the OC (keep the single IFR if you keep the float mins higher) and obviously government contract minimums are higher and do NOT get lower as the season prgresses. I talked to one of the agents and he said things vary with everyone, but as both he and grouchy hinted at, PIC can make or break your chances.
i have noticed that operators are lowering some of their requirements from what they asked earlier in the hiring season...good news.
good luck all!!!

[water wings]

i thought this was worth hauling over here from the other insurance thread...hope you don't mind, spafloats...

Are you looking for hull insurance rates or liability? Remember that location area/range of operation and who/what you are flying all have a bearing on the rates.

In addition, these days it is not a whether the insurance companies will charge different rates but if they will quote or just decline. (Not enough competition out there....general rule of economics is that there needs to be at least 10 companies in the marketplace for true competitive pricing and there are not that many insurance companies writing commercial seasplanes in Canada.)

[just clearing the trees]

It was logged as PIC in my logbook.

So do you put on your resume and tell employers that you have 90 hours of PIC Otter time? Because I don't think they'll believe that a guy with 35 hours of float time got a Polish Otter job.

[spafloats]

Water wings,

No problem bringing my post over to this thread.

Insurance is the one of the most hated issues by the pilots and operators in the seaplane business. There are many inaccurate stories (myths? half truths?rumours?) out there that swirl about and seem to develop a life of their own.

A few things that should be clarified about insurance as it relates to seaplanes:

1. Insurance for aircraft in Canada is bought from a broker and not an agent. A broker is an independent business person who deals with only one company and works for the client, an agent works a direct writer of insurance and works for only one company. (Avemco was a direct writer and their sales staff were agents. They have ceased writing business in Canada.)

2. There are only a very limited number of insurance companies that write aircraft insurance in Canada and an even smaller group of companies that write commercial seaplane insurance. Among this group is Global Aerospace, Lloyds, AIM Underwriting, CAIG and AIG (Canada). These companies don`t write insurance on all types of seaplanes (some don`t like to write insurance on piston airplanes, some don`t like fabric aircraft, etc.). Most economists will tell you that in any instance with less than 10 competing companies in any industry there is not a true competition system in econonic terms.

3. I have yet to see a written document from an aviation insurance company that states in black and white the hours and or specific insurance minimum criteria for pilots (hence the swirling rumours!!). Its like trying to hit a moving target without knowing what (where) the target is. (If anyone has something from an insurance COMPANY that shows these numbers PLEASE P.M. me, I would love to be proven wrong!)

4. The rate of accidents in aviation is declining according to T.C., F.A.A. and insurance company loss data. Insurance underwriters in many cases are not pilots and have never been in a seaplane and as a result don`tunderstand the hands-on specifics of seaplanes (which is a very different world from landplane operations!)

5. Insurance rates on hull and liabilty coverage has gone up by staggering amounts in the the last few years because of many reasons including 9/11, increased reinsurance rates, lower returns on investment income and escalating court settlements for claims.

6. In Canada, airplanes are valued for the most part in U.S. dollars. The value of hulls has gone down as a result, as have the cost of parts with U.S. sources (which should mean lower claims costs for repairing airplanes).

Please don`t blame me for the above, I just thought a clarification of some of the issues that I think are the most significant would benefit all people who read this thread.

Spafloats

[Cat Driver]

Excellent post spafloats, I have a couple of friends in Lloyds who are underwriters and beyond doubt there is flexibility in insurance policies.

Also you are correct, I have never seen a fixed hours requirement for sea plane insurance.

You still teaching on the Cessna float plane ?

Cat

[spafloats]

Cat,

Thanks for the endorsement for my last post.

Yes, I`m still doing float training here (at least once the water softens up here!?), the airplane is just having a new engine installed as I write this.

In terms of insurance, the general rule of thumb at the present time for seaplane minimums is 500 hrs TT with 250 floats for a 180/185 and 500 hours floats for a DHC-2. Other aircraft and experience is taken into account (example: retractable time if the airplane is an amphib.).

As I said, I don`t write the rules and these minimums make it hard for new pilots to break into the market, but that is the way it is at present with the few companies in the market.

Anyone who wants to start a new insurance company and has some (read lots!) of extra coin to put up as reserves please contact me.

Cat, want a job as a field underwriter/ loss prevention representative?

Spafloats

[bottom_feeder]

ok... so here is my question....

Does this mean that someone with 500 hrs on a 185 cant fly a beaver? or someone with 500 hrs of cub time.... now has to spend 100 hours flying cargo before he can carry pax on a 185? For some operations... 100 hrs of cargo could be two summer's worth.

how can anyone upgrade once at an operation? Obviously higher time guys flying beavers and otters will move on, sooner or later.... leaving room for those of us on the bottom to move up (hopefully). But that is alot fo training to give a pilot 100 hours on type.

Not only... does an operator have to justify flying that aircraft for the 100 hours, whether it be cargo or camp work.... he also has to consider that it is going to require 2 pilots to do these flights. So many operations are seeing increases in operational costs every year, who can justify paying so much more for training to satisfy the insurance man?

Seeing as insurance is stopping the natural progression of moving up the ladder in the bush.... does this mean that operators are going to have to start paying their pilots more to stick around? or will they only hire guys willing to put up $30 000 to get some float time?


sorry i guess that was more than one question.... and i am sure the answer is different depending on what insurance broker you are talking to and whatever day of the week it is

[Cat Driver]

" Cat, want a job as a field underwriter/ loss prevention representative? "

That sounds interesting, however at the present time I am really committed to several clients who are trying to get several Cats active it the airdisplay market.

However it is an interesting thought for later.

Now may I suggest something?

Why don't you set up a group owned float plane such as a Cub or Champ and oversee the youngsters who want to really build time in an affordable manner.... as I have outlined somewhere here on Avcanada.

Both of us are aware that there would not be any signifigant amount of money in it for us, but money is not the only thing in life.

Just think of the satisfaction you would get to have been part of helping some youngsters get a good start in aviation.

You never know but your Cessna just might get more use also.

Cat

[DEL]

Just clearing the trees wrote:
So do you put on your resume and tell employers that you have 90 hours of PIC Otter time? Because I don't think they'll believe that a guy with 35 hours of float time got a Polish Otter job.

Yes, all my float time has been logged as PIC other than my training to get my seaplane rating. The Otter time was signed off as PIC by my employer. Other than training,all my time once I received my rating has been logged as PIC. When I am Pilot In Command, I log it as that and when I was flying the Otter airplane, it was logged as PIC.

[just clearing the trees]

What do potential employers say when you tell what your time is on? Have you run into any employers that think that's a little fishy?

[bottom_feeder]

It's a great idea cat, and it'a a great way to get started. In the long run, it is way cheaper than any 50 hour bush course (@ cost/hr)...assuming nothing (expensive) breaks on the aircraft.

Trust me... i know. After the insurance man said that they "couldnt sign me off with my kinda time (400 hrs with 175 on floats)"... i got mad and sat down with my boss to figure out a way to beat it. When everything was said and done... i made money on the airplane.... and the money i woulda spent every night at the local bar.... i dedicated to putting gas in my cub. With my bosses permission...i flew around to some our camps selling beer and ice to our guests at a premium.

It wasnt cheap ....but neither is sitting around waiting for the insurance man to cut you a break. Sometimes u gotta just look at the big picture... and besides... if any of us were in it for the money....we probably would quit a long time ago.

[Cat Driver]

Bottom feeder :

The problem with aviation is people are programmed to think that there is only one way to become profficient and skilled on airplanes, and that is mostly because they never look beyond the structured flight training offered by FTU's.

The truth is if someone wishing to start a career in the bush want to really learn they should think very long and serious about the method I have outlined in many of my posts.

There is not only freedom of where, when and why you fly when you own your own float plane there is freedom from the structured training offered by the training industry.

Just because a school offers a " Bush Pilot " training program that does not necessarily mean those teaching it have any real grasp of the subject.

Cat

[spafloats]

Cat,

Your idea of creating a low-cost group ownership plan on a seaplane has great merit (Something like an Aeronca Chief would be my first pick.). What you essentially are creating is a not-for-profit flying club with an inexpensive (Note: I didn`t say cheap!) seaplane that could log a lot of time for few dollars with supervision and "sober second thought" from someone with experience overseeing the "club".

Insurance companies generally take a dim view of aircraft with more that 4 owners, but over a season that probably isn`t a bad number to share the airplane with anyway to achieve the goal of building hours.

Insurance companies like to see a logical (insurance companies and logic...now there is an oxymoron!!) progression from smaller to larger and more complex aircraft so a time building aircraft supplemented with some time on a bigger more complex floatplane for some time-on-type would make a great mix.

Spafloats

[Cat Driver]

" Your idea of creating a low-cost group ownership plan on a seaplane has great merit (Something like an Aeronca Chief would be my first pick.). What you essentially are creating is a not-for-profit flying club with an inexpensive (Note: I didn`t say cheap!) seaplane that could log a lot of time for few dollars with supervision and "sober second thought" from someone with experience overseeing the "club". "

Exactly, and I am toying with the idea of a sort of franchise arrangement where control of the activities monitored on a real time basis will add to the credibility of the learning experience to satisfy first the insurers and secondly the future employers.

Control of the activities would be assisted by the use of a sat phone with a rigid set of rules as to how the airplane is operated, that way two pilots could tour around northern Canada visiting operators and learning in the process. If the airplane has mechanical problems there are lots of commercial sea plane operators who would be able to fix the machine.

The make and model of the airplane is secondary as long as it is reasonably priced and well maintained...

..well maintained is one of the most important equasions to consider for safety and reliability.

As experienced sea plane pilots retire or move into other areas of flying the bush pilot wages will improve, one thing I can assure you is the insurance companies will not be reducing their requirements.

It is an idea that needs more thought, as far as I am concerned I would be willing to help where I can when I can.

Cat

[cloudrunner]

I am right there with you Cat. I have been trying to think for a while now how young guns could build some REAL time without costing a fortune and having a lot of pressure put on them.

My thought was to have a small fleet, if you will, of a/c (Champs, 172's, Cub's) that could be utilized at fly-in camps to be used for grocery, cargo, supplies only. They could be provided to the operator with a pilot, on a dry lease basis for a reasonable rate to fly overloads (and there are always overloads that operators charge the customers $1/pound for)

The details would have to be thought out but it would be real working experience for low-time guys without the risk of pax lives and expensive equiptment. I am quite sure that with good training, supervision and management, the aircraft would soon pay for themselves and provide the next generation of Bush Pilot's with a start.

Just my $0.02.

[Cat Driver]

Cloudrunner :

Yes in a perfect world your idea would be reasonable and workable.

Unfortunately once the airpalnes and pilots started to do any flying for the camps it would be a commercial operation requireing an OC.

Once you get into the carriage of people or goods for hire your operating costs skyrocket due to all the requirements under CAR's.

I am still mulling over how best to get a time building / experience building program working whereby one would be out of the strangle hold of TC.

There are several ways this can be done such as having economical reasonably priced aircraft for rent to time builders....

...aircraft rental does not require an OC however there would be costs that would have to be taken into consideration, that is one of the reasons that I am thinking about shared ownership where the pilots would hopefully take extra care not to smash the thing up or abuse it because they have a monetary intrest in it.

What we need is everyone to get onboard and give their thoughts and ideas on how best to do this.


I think a few of these would be great little time builders...

http://www.thatchercx4.com

Cat

[cloudrunner]

Unfortunately once the airpalnes and pilots started to do any flying for the camps it would be a commercial operation requireing an OC.
Once you get into the carriage of people or goods for hire your operating costs skyrocket due to all the requirements under CAR's.

Yes, at present the rules state that any revenue flight requires an OC etc.etc. Personally I don't think it is outside the scope of reality to work with TC to change the rules for the sake of creating an apprenticeship-like environment where new commercial pilots could cut their teeth for the sake of saving an industry... the fly-in fishing industry for one.

The rules are in place to stop any Joe Wannabe from buying a PA-12 and starting to haul who-knows-what to who-knows-where with no regulation.
What I am suggesting is a unique category which would benefit all involved. The pilots to gain experience, the operator's to have their frieght hauled at a cheap rate and the industry as a whole, which will survive beacuse in 15 years there will be pilots qulaified to fly Beavers and Otters and Norsemen.

If things carry on as they are, there is going to come a time when we just plain run out of float drivers. You could argue that the insurance requirements will go down to meet demand but I think that will not be the case. It will be a continuation of the trend that has already started, ie: Big Bob's Fly-in Trout Fishing, that has been doing it's own flying for years can't be bothered going through the hassle of finding a qualified pilot every year, so he sells his Beaver and charters XYZ Air Service to do his flying, after a while, XYZ can't fill their seats and they go under or get into the MIFR market where they can run Navahoe's and find pilots no problem. Soon enough there is very little or no seaplane operations left, and a multi-million, if not billion dollar industry will fade away in Canada. The impact on small communities would be great indeed.

There is definately a problem on the horizon. What the answer is remains to be seen.. but I am afraid that without some pro-active solutions, we will see a serious decline in an industry that has produced some fine pilots and some happy lives.

I didn't intend to steer this conversation in another direction, just using the opportunity created by this thread to share what's in my cranium.

I am still mulling over how best to get a time building / experience building program working whereby one would be out of the strangle hold of TC

P.S. There is an escape for every strangle hold.. if it means reaching around and grabbing a handfull... it's still an escape.

P.S.S. That little machine you referenced in your last post looks like a blast...

[water wings]

just another tidbit of info on the insurance front...got an e-mail back from an operator today that (quote ) said:
"sorry, the 300 hour on DHC-2 is a must, the insurance companies rule"
so it seems no matter how much time one has on any other type, it doesn't matter there...interesting and disheartenning...